US military to allow women in direct combat

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/23/military-to-open-combat-jobs-to-women/

Seems that the US has a different take on the role of women in the military than the UK. It says it might take awhile but this is the direction they're moving in.

Thoughts?

I approve of this. The most capable person should get the job, regardless of their genitalia. Simple, really.

About time. Women have wanted to fight for their countries since countries began, and have always had to take a backseat/alternate role because of fragility and ther reasons (that I don't need to get into, we all know them and many are right and many are wrong).

Now? They have the same endurance training as men, and guns are a great equalizer. If we were still swinging swords around and wearing chainmail, men would be better suited for war, buw not it's your backpack, flak jacket, gear, etc (which weighs less for women as the surface area isn't as lage, etc) and a gun. Women are just as capable as men with guns.

... Not to say I approve of any current fighting going on at all, but women have been sidelined or pretending to be men since war became a thing so they could protect/whatever their reasons just like men. It's about time.

As long as all soldiers are all held to the same high standards of conduct and fitness, I see no problem with this. If standards are lowered to meet recruitment quotas, I see a lot of problems with this.

Quick broken record thoughts...

* Still don't like this "option" being "open to women" when selective services is still enforceable. Are we going to abolish that or just keep ignoring the elephant in the room?

* What do they mean when they say they will "examine physical standards"? Is an examination a precursor to change? I like the idea of gender-neutral requirements so long as they aren't fucked.

* How did the ACLU actually justify those arguments? My military ignorance showing here, but how does being barred from front line combat duty prevent promotion?

I'm all for scientific experimentation; try it out and see how it works. If it works, cool beans. If it fails, then move on.

Obligatory... /popcorn

This is going to sound awful, but I'm kind of hoping this leads to a "Beauty and The Beast" Unit scenario.
Not because I thought those scenes were awesome, I just like the idea of exploiting women in an unconventional fashion. Like, why put women in the kitchen, when you could turn them into science experiments and set them upon poor people.

That said, I've always (seriously) supported the idea, but at the same time can't help but worry that maybe there's too much combat to go around in the first place.

SadakoMoose:
This is going to sound awful, but I'm kind of hoping this leads to a "Beauty and The Beast" Unit scenario.
Not because I thought those scenes were awesome, I just like the idea of exploiting women in an unconventional fashion. Like, why put women in the kitchen, when you could turn them into science experiments and set them upon poor people.

That said, I've always (seriously) supported the idea, but at the same time can't help but worry that maybe there's too much combat to go around in the first place.

Eh...I'm sorry what are you trying to say? I honestly have no idea.

erttheking:

SadakoMoose:
This is going to sound awful, but I'm kind of hoping this leads to a "Beauty and The Beast" Unit scenario.
Not because I thought those scenes were awesome, I just like the idea of exploiting women in an unconventional fashion. Like, why put women in the kitchen, when you could turn them into science experiments and set them upon poor people.

That said, I've always (seriously) supported the idea, but at the same time can't help but worry that maybe there's too much combat to go around in the first place.

Eh...I'm sorry what are you trying to say? I honestly have no idea.

Metal Gear Solid 4. I think.

OT: All good news. "Examining physical standards" is vague and sounds a little suspect, but whatever.

bastardofmelbourne:

erttheking:

SadakoMoose:
This is going to sound awful, but I'm kind of hoping this leads to a "Beauty and The Beast" Unit scenario.
Not because I thought those scenes were awesome, I just like the idea of exploiting women in an unconventional fashion. Like, why put women in the kitchen, when you could turn them into science experiments and set them upon poor people.

That said, I've always (seriously) supported the idea, but at the same time can't help but worry that maybe there's too much combat to go around in the first place.

Eh...I'm sorry what are you trying to say? I honestly have no idea.

Metal Gear Solid 4. I think.

OT: All good news. "Examining physical standards" is vague and sounds a little suspect, but whatever.

Oh THAT beauty and the beast. I was thinking of the other one.

DevilWithaHalo:
* How did the ACLU actually justify those arguments? My military ignorance showing here, but how does being barred from front line combat duty prevent promotion?

As I understand it, in the US military, in certain areas, serving in a combat role is a prerequisite for promotion. Presumably they don't want someone with no experience in actual fighting getting too far up the ladder.

...

Anyway, like the last time this has come round, I think it's a good idea. Yes, there will be male personnel who will be uncomfortable with serving with women (but who are presumably ok with people trying to kill them), the same as there was with serving with openly gay people, or black people before that.

erttheking:

bastardofmelbourne:

erttheking:

Eh...I'm sorry what are you trying to say? I honestly have no idea.

Metal Gear Solid 4. I think.

OT: All good news. "Examining physical standards" is vague and sounds a little suspect, but whatever.

Oh THAT beauty and the beast. I was thinking of the other one.

The one with the 9/11 werewolf?
No, that's exploiting MEN in an over the top fashion. That's no fun because everybody does it. Exploiting WOMEN is where it's at! For the first time in our history, we have come to a point in gender relations where both men and women alike can be treated as equals and have their lives destroyed to satisfy the whims of horrible wealthy people in same ways, rather than in gendered modes. Whereas before, women could only be exploited through traditional gender roles ie. domestic labor, or the constant sexualization and objectification, now their bodies can be used to maim and kill others for the purposes of far wealthier, powerful individuals. The best part is, because they're women, is that we can still do the other stuff to them at the same time!

(Ok, that's the ultra-cynical view.
In reality, I do support out armed forces, just not the people at the top nor the system of neo-liberal geopolitics that necessitates these bloody conflicts. While a strong national defense is important, and there are far fewer things quite as noble as giving up large portions of your life in service of the people, I think we do need to occasionally remind ourselves that shit flows down and that there are people at the top that might not really have our best interests in mind.)

DevilWithaHalo:

* How did the ACLU actually justify those arguments? My military ignorance showing here, but how does being barred from front line combat duty prevent promotion?

for the same reason, you wouldn't hire people with no job experience to run anything. See how combat is one of the most important functions of the US military, having experience in combat is almost always necessary for a position in high command (unless the country hasn't been in a war recently e.g. switzerland).

Not to mention, that combat provides glory to commanders, which is pretty handy for rising in the ranks.

Great, now men and women alike can go around the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

This is bad news...
Poor gals already have it bad as it is, now some will be stuck in nowhere with a group of guys on patrol. Sexual harassment and rape will go through the roof.
I'm not personally against women in fighting roles, but the prospects are frightening.

I'm going to say the same things I said when Australia did it
1-Happy for them to give it their best
2-Fitness standards must not in any way be lowered
3-There must not be imposed any quotas or there must not be any women pushed through to special forces for the image of it
4-The women must require only the bare minimum additional logistics.
5-Any woman who cannot perform one of the roles in an infantry section cannot join the infantry. I don't care if she is a magnificent rifleman, if she cannot physically operate a support weapon (an issue that I have seen) she should not be there. It is the same for men.

the clockmaker:
I'm going to say the same things I said when Australia did it
1-Happy for them to give it their best
2-Fitness standards must not in any way be lowered
3-There must not be imposed any quotas or there must not be any women pushed through to special forces for the image of it
4-The women must require only the bare minimum additional logistics.
5-Any woman who cannot perform one of the roles in an infantry section cannot join the infantry. I don't care if she is a magnificent rifleman, if she cannot physically operate a support weapon (an issue that I have seen) she should not be there. It is the same for men.

All individual members of an infantry section must be able to perform all the roles of the section? I didn't know that.

Actually, there sorta kinda is an argument for a quota, for peacekeeping at least. You don't want to only have men around when you want to strip search a woman, and so on.

IIRC, in the US military, specialist groups kept taking women from regular units because of that sort of thing, which pissed regular units off because they needed people for that as well.

TheIronRuler:
This is bad news...
Poor gals already have it bad as it is, now some will be stuck in nowhere with a group of guys on patrol. Sexual harassment and rape will go through the roof.
I'm not personally against women in fighting roles, but the prospects are frightening.

I feel like I shouldn't shoot my mouth off without all the facts. Is this really a problem?

thaluikhain:

the clockmaker:
I'm going to say the same things I said when Australia did it
1-Happy for them to give it their best
2-Fitness standards must not in any way be lowered
3-There must not be imposed any quotas or there must not be any women pushed through to special forces for the image of it
4-The women must require only the bare minimum additional logistics.
5-Any woman who cannot perform one of the roles in an infantry section cannot join the infantry. I don't care if she is a magnificent rifleman, if she cannot physically operate a support weapon (an issue that I have seen) she should not be there. It is the same for men.

All individual members of an infantry section must be able to perform all the roles of the section? I didn't know that.

Actually, there sorta kinda is an argument for a quota, for peacekeeping at least. You don't want to only have men around when you want to strip search a woman, and so on.

IIRC, in the US military, specialist groups kept taking women from regular units because of that sort of thing, which pissed regular units off because they needed people for that as well.

1- Obviously someone whose role it is to carry the gun will be better at carrying the gun, but if he goes down, someone needs to step up. Same with radio operator, same with commanding the section. Now there is a designated chain of succession for these things, but if a female/male cannot fulfill any of those roles it imposes a limitation on the capabilities of the section, meaning that your mates will have to carry your burden.

2-And I agree that there is a requirement for women to be in the defence force for those sort of purposes, but that does not necessitate them being in an arms corps. Especially for peace keeping ops.

They should have read Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment when it was published; 10 years ago.

Captcha: bad books

It most certainly is not!

WaitWHAT:
I approve of this. The most capable person should get the job, regardless of their genitalia. Simple, really.

unbeknownst to a vast majority right now, Women can go through ranger school.

what is ranger school?

this is:

ot: this sounds like progress until you realize that sexism exists in the military.

namely the Combat Arms section.

unlike POG's, being in CA is like a fraternity you see in movies. I doubt because women would be able to do the same job that men have done for decades will change that.

you should of heard our Senior DS on women, specifically marriage, he himself on his fifth.

hell, even our Cadre had horror stories of women in general, and these were just Scouts, Im sure the 11's and kilo's have their own.

I'll be going back once my shoulder gets better, but after going through 19D OSUT, I dont think women could handle it.

Im not trying to sound sexist, we had grown ass men have mental breakdowns due to how mentally tough and draining it was. The Drill Sergeants give no shits about you, unless you are National Guard, then they will make fun of you to no end.

Dont get me started on how they would be able to handle the 30 second shower drills either, that lasted us about 5 weeks.

If they can do it, good, don your berets, all for one, thunder and lightning. But I've seen people drop because they were not cut out for it, people that by all portents could of made it if just barely, because they couldn't hold on for a few more hours.

Hell, take me for example, I did everything, FTX 1,2,3,4,and 5, 4,8,12,16x2,20,and 25k ruck marches, SSGT, Warrior Challenge, all obstacle courses, Confidence Tower, and all APFT's sans the last one.

Failed that because for the 25k I added another 40 lbs. from a battles ruck so he wouldn't fall out, during a break it got caught on the IOTV when I was removing it and ate shit on the tank trail.

it isn't really a matter of if it will happen, from the article it is going to be implemented, but for the first few years expect reports of sexism, sexual assault, and other bullshit.

People will be shocked, of course, but then when a job section has been dominated by men since the founding of the military, what can you expect?

still though, I'm wondering what they will do about barracks at IET and AIT's, Sandhill and Harmony Church don't exactly have room to add gender specific barracks.

Sand Hill has been around since the 60's even.

I also doubt they will want to room males and females together, we had one guy try deprately to convince his fiance that he wasn't cheating on her while in a bay with 58 other guys.

Yay, equal rights and all that. I never really understood why they couldn't fight in the first place, besides really old tradition.

SadakoMoose:
For the first time in our history, we have come to a point in gender relations where both men and women alike can be treated as equals and have their lives destroyed to satisfy the whims of horrible wealthy people in same ways, rather than in gendered modes.

You know the US military is all volunteer, right? No one's forcing them to fight and "have their lives destroyed".

thaluikhain:

the clockmaker:
I'm going to say the same things I said when Australia did it
1-Happy for them to give it their best
2-Fitness standards must not in any way be lowered
3-There must not be imposed any quotas or there must not be any women pushed through to special forces for the image of it
4-The women must require only the bare minimum additional logistics.
5-Any woman who cannot perform one of the roles in an infantry section cannot join the infantry. I don't care if she is a magnificent rifleman, if she cannot physically operate a support weapon (an issue that I have seen) she should not be there. It is the same for men.

All individual members of an infantry section must be able to perform all the roles of the section? I didn't know that.

Actually, there sorta kinda is an argument for a quota, for peacekeeping at least. You don't want to only have men around when you want to strip search a woman, and so on.

IIRC, in the US military, specialist groups kept taking women from regular units because of that sort of thing, which pissed regular units off because they needed people for that as well.

actually, yea, during our qualifications, a few people had their 240's get away from them.

when the M2's went down not many people knew how to do headspace and timing.

the Mk 19 destroyed some people [specifically, I hate this weapon, there is no fucking use for a automatic grenade machine gun other than 'see that guy? fuck him and everyone around him.', seriously want to know what the idiots in the Navy were thinking when they designed it]

to top it all off, we had people fail, fail the 249 dis-assembly and reassembly because they took the entire thing apart.

you cant shouldn't take apart the feed tray cover, yet somehow, some way, we had people do it, and fail it.

Special Forces does not take female soldiers for anything other than psychiatric specialists, which from what I remember is the only thing women can do in the SF community that does not pertain to intelligence.

The U.S. military at the time was using a counter insurgent doctrine, so of course women would inadvertently end up in firefights, but the thing is anyone can be a rifleman [silly marines, everyone learns BRM and ARM in the army too.] our DS's recalled having a cook for a driver, a mechanic as their gunner, and a Diver as one of their JAFO's [sadly they hit an IED, killing the cook and mechanic].

getting off track, the Army understands it needs women for searching females at checkpoints [rarely do they do strip searches though, unless there is enough reason to warrant one [baggy clothes, person looks bigger/fatter than average, wearing inappropriate clothes such as heavy jackets or winter clothing while it is 120+ outside], and then its usually done at a safe distance until the threat has been cleared.

as I said in my other post, good to see it, but there are too many problems already that would need to be addressed before anything solid could or should be done.

SadakoMoose:

In reality, I do support out armed forces, just not the people at the top nor the system of neo-liberal geopolitics that necessitates these bloody conflicts. While a strong national defense is important, and there are far fewer things quite as noble as giving up large portions of your life in service of the people, I think we do need to occasionally remind ourselves that shit flows down and that there are people at the top that might not really have our best interests in mind.)

Um...what?

As a political independent I have to ask if you're jesting. Are you referring to President Obama's policies that have driven war hawks in the GOP furious because he's refusing to drop troops on the ground in Syria just as he did in Libya and who has and continues to be focused on downgrading US military involvement throughout the middle east?

I'm very familiar with how the GOP neo-cons routinely and reflexively push for American military involvement all across the globe as a part of "Demonstrating America's strength". Most of my high school and college friends were in the military at some point as were several of my kin.

Or are you talking about some other nation?

You're joking, right?

You must be joking.

sextus the crazy:

DevilWithaHalo:

* How did the ACLU actually justify those arguments? My military ignorance showing here, but how does being barred from front line combat duty prevent promotion?

for the same reason, you wouldn't hire people with no job experience to run anything. See how combat is one of the most important functions of the US military, having experience in combat is almost always necessary for a position in high command (unless the country hasn't been in a war recently e.g. switzerland).

Not to mention, that combat provides glory to commanders, which is pretty handy for rising in the ranks.

the military uses a point system, i.e. you need x amount of points and pass the interview board to be considered for promotion.

example of how it works

you are a Specialist 19D Calvary scout, your next promotion will put you as a NCO [sergeant and above]

the unit you are in has room for about 34 people to be promoted to sergeant.

[at the time] you need 39 points [low for any mos, most of the time its 700+ points for a e-5 promotion]

you pass your re qualification for your weapons, pass your bi-annual PT test [max that shit, yo, 300 and the APFT badge, aren't you a pt beast], and have a couple of degree's in your pocket.

you get ready for your board, you need to know your MOS's creed, the NCO creed, the soldiers creed, various questions from nearly everything you could think of, from your weapons specifications, to the distance various ribbons, medals, and name plates have to be on your Class-A's/B's.

you pass that shit like a boss.

now you get put in a promotion line, when promotions are handed out, you can either get it or not, even if you meet all the qualifications based on your commanders discretion. you could qualify for the promotion twenty times over and if the commander thins you are a shit bag, you will be a specialist for a while.

however, e-shit to e-4 are all automatic promotions, all you need is TIG/TIS.

everything past e-4 requires a promotion board, o-1 and higher requires a commission from the POTUS as does w-1 to w-5 [though I have only ever seen one Chief Warrant Officer 5, I hear they only come out at a full moon when the planets are aligned. and only if you have enough coffee]

so, no, battle =/= promotions!, its all based on what the Branch and unit needs at the moment, and you are going up against everyone else that is promotable, so you have to know your shit. one of my DS's still had his e-5 promotion board cheat sheet he used to study, damn thing was nearly as long as the collective works of Tolkien, printed front and back, and still used it for his SFC board.

It wasn't this way already? Jesus, talk about lagging behind in terms of equal rights.

We'e seriously only getting to this now? SHouldn't it have been like that in the first place?

Sheesh, I'm glad my generation isn't this fucking defective...

TheIronRuler:
This is bad news...
Poor gals already have it bad as it is, now some will be stuck in nowhere with a group of guys on patrol. Sexual harassment and rape will go through the roof.
I'm not personally against women in fighting roles, but the prospects are frightening.

general sexual harrasment and such is to be expected..but rape?

give your gender some credit..PLEASE

You do know the gear weighs around 90kg counting Ammo, rifle, gun, supplies, etc... and that you have to carry it for long distances at times? Also the death or injury of a female soldier or civilian has a greater psychological effect on surrounding combatants and is likely to cause rash actions.

In times of great struggle where male population is reaching a critical point I would understand but otherwise it seems widely unnecessary. Besides there's going to be obvious issues of sexism and sexual harassment. Oh well, lets see how it pans out.

I do think women can and should be able to fight for their country, lets just hope the benefits outweigh the cons.

Vault101:

TheIronRuler:
This is bad news...
Poor gals already have it bad as it is, now some will be stuck in nowhere with a group of guys on patrol. Sexual harassment and rape will go through the roof.
I'm not personally against women in fighting roles, but the prospects are frightening.

general sexual harrasment and such is to be expected..but rape?

give your gender some credit..PLEASE

.
I am my gender. I know people in the army. This happens, and there's often the abuse of power involved. Having a bunch of guys and a few women in a squad away from base doing patrols in red zones for weeks will get ugly at some point or another.

eee, you can deny it. You know what? If you deny it, don't quote this message. Because if you do, I don't want to follow up on that.

Selvec:
It wasn't this way already? Jesus, talk about lagging behind in terms of equal rights.

I was surprised as well.

I know women who've killed while in the military, and I assumed they were troops on the front line. Guess I was wrong.

Zyst:
Besides there's going to be obvious issues of sexism and sexual harassment. Oh well, lets see how it pans out.

The best way to handle those is not to ignore it and keep woman jobs separate from mens. That's the problem.

The solution is to start integrating. The sooner we do, the less of a problem these will be sooner.

Kalezian:

ot: this sounds like progress until you realize that sexism exists in the military.

well duh....I wouldnt be surprised if there wasnt any sexism

you should of heard our Senior DS on women, specifically marriage, he himself on his fifth.

hell, even our Cadre had horror stories of women in general, and these were just Scouts, Im sure the 11's and kilo's have their own.

what do you mean? just sounds like personal storys...as in not relevant to the job

I'm also not liking some of the assumptions your making here

I'll be going back once my shoulder gets better, but after going through 19D OSUT, I dont think women could handle it.

Im not trying to sound sexist, we had grown ass men have mental breakdowns due to how mentally tough and draining it was. The Drill Sergeants give no shits about you, unless you are National Guard, then they will make fun of you to no end.

...well duh, thats the army isnt it? why wouldn't a women be able to handle that? I mean they should ptobably know thats what they are getting into

Dont get me started on how they would be able to handle the 30 second shower drills either, that lasted us about 5 weeks.

whats so awful about 30 second show drills? do they make you bathe in bleach or somthing?

TheIronRuler:
.
I am my gender. I know people in the army. This happens, and there's often the abuse of power involved. Having a bunch of guys and a few women in a squad away from base doing patrols in red zones for weeks will get ugly at some point or another.

eee, you can deny it. You know what? If you deny it, don't quote this message. Because if you do, I don't want to follow up on that.

I can't deny it due to lack of scources/knowelege on the topic

I just....it just kind of disturbed me that "people"..."normal people/men" can turn into rapists just because they are out on a tour of duty, on their own friggen squad...I mean I know solders do questionable things but....this one baffles me

is there a history of man on man rape at all?

Kalezian:

sextus the crazy:

DevilWithaHalo:

* How did the ACLU actually justify those arguments? My military ignorance showing here, but how does being barred from front line combat duty prevent promotion?

for the same reason, you wouldn't hire people with no job experience to run anything. See how combat is one of the most important functions of the US military, having experience in combat is almost always necessary for a position in high command (unless the country hasn't been in a war recently e.g. switzerland).

Not to mention, that combat provides glory to commanders, which is pretty handy for rising in the ranks.

the military uses a point system, i.e. you need x amount of points and pass the interview board to be considered for promotion.

example of how it works

you are a Specialist 19D Calvary scout, your next promotion will put you as a NCO [sergeant and above]
I was talking about the officer core. I'm very aware that it's possible that you can become a high ranking NCO, CO w/o combat experience; proving oneself in combat is very attractive for officer promotions.
the unit you are in has room for about 34 people to be promoted to sergeant.

[at the time] you need 39 points [low for any mos, most of the time its 700+ points for a e-5 promotion]

you pass your re qualification for your weapons, pass your bi-annual PT test [max that shit, yo, 300 and the APFT badge, aren't you a pt beast], and have a couple of degree's in your pocket.

you get ready for your board, you need to know your MOS's creed, the NCO creed, the soldiers creed, various questions from nearly everything you could think of, from your weapons specifications, to the distance various ribbons, medals, and name plates have to be on your Class-A's/B's.

you pass that shit like a boss.

now you get put in a promotion line, when promotions are handed out, you can either get it or not, even if you meet all the qualifications based on your commanders discretion. you could qualify for the promotion twenty times over and if the commander thins you are a shit bag, you will be a specialist for a while.

however, e-shit to e-4 are all automatic promotions, all you need is TIG/TIS.

everything past e-4 requires a promotion board, o-1 and higher requires a commission from the POTUS as does w-1 to w-5 [though I have only ever seen one Chief Warrant Officer 5, I hear they only come out at a full moon when the planets are aligned. and only if you have enough coffee]

so, no, battle =/= promotions!, its all based on what the Branch and unit needs at the moment, and you are going up against everyone else that is promotable, so you have to know your shit. one of my DS's still had his e-5 promotion board cheat sheet he used to study, damn thing was nearly as long as the collective works of Tolkien, printed front and back, and still used it for his SFC board.

I was talking about the officer core. Having experience managing a large unit in combat is attractive for the competitive general ranks.

No stupid "Conservative" comments yet about how "Wimmenz just arent as good at fightin as men" and "Its a legitimate restriction for the safety of teh soldiers"? Curious, I expected a lot more of that.

Maybe I'm early, or maybe the recent gun discussions left me with a poor impression of the Escapist's politically conservative American posters.

Either way, I think this is one of those "Well duh" changes. Just like allowing blacks to serve, you'd think that a country founded (allegedly) on the idea that "All [persons] are created equal" would have been a lot quicker to legislate for equal opportunity, especially in military service. Maybe if they had allowed any national of age to volunteer they wouldn't have needed to draft soldiers in the 20th century bush wars?

Kalezian:
the Mk 19 destroyed some people (specifically, I hate this weapon, there is no fucking use for a automatic grenade machine gun other than 'see that guy? fuck him and everyone around him.', seriously want to know what the idiots in the Navy were thinking when they designed it)

I imagine they were thinking exactly that. "See that thing over there? Fuck it. FUCK IT WITH FIRE!"

Now I'm not a soldier by any stretch of the imagination, but I figure the ability to carpet-bomb a huge area with boom-booms in a matter of seconds has quite a few tactical uses when there's no time for dedicated fire support.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked